All that contrived speculation came from FEMA which NIST swiftly dumped and now denies ever existing. I mentioned this earlier
Opinions are just opinions. Facts speak for themselves.
Roland,
you have cited the latest NIST report so many times in this thread that i would like to ask you to please post for reference a link to the sections you are refering to. I'm curious to see them.
I remember reading the NIST report on Building 7 and it was woefully inadequate ... but i still disbelieve in exploding buildings these days.
I think it would have been both unecessary and way too risky.
Why would then bother to explode buildings when they were already allegedly complicit in letting 19 hijackers on board airplanes to plow in to towers?
They already had their crime. Did it REALLY matter if the building shocked and awed us?
And can you find any example of a building demolition that collapses directly from the center of a hole where a plane went through? I think that is a valid argument against building demolition as well. Those buildings visibly collapsed from the areas immediately surrounding the hole!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I know, he has such a way with words doesnt he? I think someone has a crush.
on your head? ...sorry...my bad.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
why didn't someone tell me i'm a mindless Fox news watching idiot?!?!?! I didn't even know i had cable? what channel is it on? i need to catch up on my conservative views.
I know, he has such a way with words doesnt he? I think someone has a crush.
Oh jlew, you know thiers no one else out for me, but you.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Roland,
you have cited the latest NIST report so many times in this thread that i would like to ask you to please post for reference a link to the sections you are refering to. I'm curious to see them.
I remember reading the NIST report on Building 7 and it was woefully inadequate ... but i still disbelieve in exploding buildings these days.
I think it would have been both unecessary and way too risky.
Why would then bother to explode buildings when they were already allegedly complicit in letting 19 hijackers on board airplanes to plow in to towers?
They already had their crime. Did it REALLY matter if the building shocked and awed us?
And can you find any example of a building demolition that collapses directly from the center of a hole where a plane went through? I think that is a valid argument against building demolition as well. Those buildings visibly collapsed from the areas immediately surrounding the hole!
The NIST dudes deny the steel melted. That's all I'm saying, and the moths are busy buzzing around bumping into things going haywire.
It's actually pretty hilarious.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
why didn't someone tell me i'm a mindless Fox news watching idiot?!?!?! I didn't even know i had cable? what channel is it on? i need to catch up on my conservative views.
i'm so embarassed
That's ok you're hiiiigh just imagine it. So far so good.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C
Steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C
this is a known fact. but roland seems to believe that since molten steel was found in the basement, that bombs had to have been planted throughout the building to cause a collapse. you are talking to a brick wall my friend but keep up the good work.
this is a known fact. but roland seems to believe that since molten steel was found in the basement, that bombs had to have been planted throughout the building to cause a collapse. you are talking to a brick wall my friend but keep up the good work.
I'm just bored. I should be working. stop entertaining me so i can go back to work and not get fired
Steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C
How many time has this been said in this thread four...five...six times?
Ok now finish the sentence...and the the melting occurred because of _____?
The precipitated iron in the dust samples came from _____?
The official report was a half baked piece of _____!!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
How many time has this been said in this thread four...five...six times?
Ok now finish the sentence...and the the melting occurred because of _____?
The precipitated iron in the dust samples came from _____?
The official report was a half baked piece of _____!!
we don't know ...our heads hurt....owwww...
conspiracy!!! conspiracy!!!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Are you paid by the Bush administration to make me believe an alternative view is totally absurd? Its working. I never thought I'd say this, but Bush is a genius.
Are you paid by the Bush administration to make me believe an alternative view is totally absurd? Its working. I never thought I'd say this, but Bush is a genius.
Oh hey lookie...more useless opinion!...my that's a switch.
Try answering the question(s).
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
you dont like any answer that have been given to you. whats the point?
Hey guess what! There hasn't been an answer yet. Jeffbr was the best poster so far. You are following the same thread aren't you?
c'mon now don't fib...you confused website links in your favorites again didn't you?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The NIST dudes deny the steel melted. That's all I'm saying, and the moths are busy buzzing around bumping into things going haywire.
It's actually pretty hilarious.
Fucking liar...
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Anyone care to add anything rather than more opinion and random guesswork?
Anyone have any factual information to offer?
heat and pressure can melt steel. heat alone can melt steel.
both facts.
and the conditions do not have to be "perfect" for this to happen.
Again, just ignore that bridge collapsing because fire melted the steel. I don't know how much more proof you need that fire can melt steel.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
And what do you have to say for your accomplishments and providing information?
zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrro! hehe
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Ok, I don't see anywhere on here where it says he denies it. But so what if he denies it? Why does it matter if in this guys opinion there wasn't melted steel at the sight? Maybe he personally didn't see any or maybe he couldn't find anyone who could testify to there being melted steel.
Again, another example of raising suspiciouns but proves nothing.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Ok, so this guy in the audience says there are "huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers". WTF ever. Yeah, I am sure there were these huge pools of it. Just because this guy in the audience says it you think it is true.
Like I said, they could probably not find anyone to testify to it who personally saw it. The best evidence that could probably be found is second hand accounts. Again, just a guess here but I would bet I am pretty close to being right.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Ok, I don't see anywhere on here where it says he denies it. But so what if he denies it? Why does it matter if in this guys opinion there wasn't melted steel at the sight? Maybe he personally didn't see any or maybe he couldn't find anyone who could testify to there being melted steel.
Again, another example of raising suspiciouns but proves nothing.
He is speaking for NIST on their behalf. They don't let their lead engineers walk around speaking for the organization uninformed. Again, it's their job to know about it.
They better know about it...don't you think?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Ok, so this guy in the audience says there are "huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers". WTF ever. Yeah, I am sure there were these huge pools of it. Just because this guy in the audience says it you think it is true.
Like I said, they could probably not find anyone to testify to it who personally saw it. The best evidence that could probably be found is second hand accounts. Again, just a guess here but I would bet I am pretty close to being right.
The firemen?...Did they look like they were joking to you? Watch and listen to all three of them respond in unison.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
you have cited the latest NIST report so many times in this thread that i would like to ask you to please post for reference a link to the sections you are refering to. I'm curious to see them.
I remember reading the NIST report on Building 7 and it was woefully inadequate ... but i still disbelieve in exploding buildings these days.
I think it would have been both unecessary and way too risky.
Why would then bother to explode buildings when they were already allegedly complicit in letting 19 hijackers on board airplanes to plow in to towers?
They already had their crime. Did it REALLY matter if the building shocked and awed us?
And can you find any example of a building demolition that collapses directly from the center of a hole where a plane went through? I think that is a valid argument against building demolition as well. Those buildings visibly collapsed from the areas immediately surrounding the hole!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
on your head? ...sorry...my bad.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i'm so embarassed
Oh jlew, you know thiers no one else out for me, but you.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
damn, you're loosing it. weak, very weak.
The NIST dudes deny the steel melted. That's all I'm saying, and the moths are busy buzzing around bumping into things going haywire.
It's actually pretty hilarious.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's ok you're hiiiigh just imagine it. So far so good.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
this is a known fact. but roland seems to believe that since molten steel was found in the basement, that bombs had to have been planted throughout the building to cause a collapse. you are talking to a brick wall my friend but keep up the good work.
I'm just bored. I should be working. stop entertaining me so i can go back to work and not get fired
How many time has this been said in this thread four...five...six times?
Ok now finish the sentence...and the the melting occurred because of _____?
The precipitated iron in the dust samples came from _____?
The official report was a half baked piece of _____!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ypnFE-IBK7M
equip with cool rock music and soothing voice over.
we don't know ...our heads hurt....owwww...
conspiracy!!! conspiracy!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Are you paid by the Bush administration to make me believe an alternative view is totally absurd? Its working. I never thought I'd say this, but Bush is a genius.
you dont like any answer that have been given to you. whats the point?
Oh hey lookie...more useless opinion!...my that's a switch.
Try answering the question(s).
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hey guess what! There hasn't been an answer yet. Jeffbr was the best poster so far. You are following the same thread aren't you?
c'mon now don't fib...you confused website links in your favorites again didn't you?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ament to that! It's like arguing with a fucking brick. A very thick brick.
Fucking liar...
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
zinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg
69charger and makingwaves have owned you too.
This dude:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gross
on the record....denies it ...no melted steel.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
heat and pressure can melt steel. heat alone can melt steel.
both facts.
and the conditions do not have to be "perfect" for this to happen.
Again, just ignore that bridge collapsing because fire melted the steel. I don't know how much more proof you need that fire can melt steel.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
And what do you have to say for your accomplishments and providing information?
zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrro! hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
where in this link does it say no melted steel?
http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2750089321.aspx
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ok, I don't see anywhere on here where it says he denies it. But so what if he denies it? Why does it matter if in this guys opinion there wasn't melted steel at the sight? Maybe he personally didn't see any or maybe he couldn't find anyone who could testify to there being melted steel.
Again, another example of raising suspiciouns but proves nothing.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
Ok, so this guy in the audience says there are "huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers". WTF ever. Yeah, I am sure there were these huge pools of it. Just because this guy in the audience says it you think it is true.
Like I said, they could probably not find anyone to testify to it who personally saw it. The best evidence that could probably be found is second hand accounts. Again, just a guess here but I would bet I am pretty close to being right.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
He is speaking for NIST on their behalf. They don't let their lead engineers walk around speaking for the organization uninformed. Again, it's their job to know about it.
They better know about it...don't you think?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The firemen?...Did they look like they were joking to you? Watch and listen to all three of them respond in unison.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")